7 Quick Takes

I find the Pope Francis hysteria just a little bizarre. I guess I’m glad, but I still find it, as a whole, what with the intensity and…elation – strange. What people seem to get most excited about – or what they say they’re excited about – is what he has to say about mercy and evangelization. Which is no different from what other recent Popes have said, including Pope Benedict. And if you think that part of it is different, then you weren’t paying any attention to Pope Benedict. Nor to Jesus Christ, apparently. Some say, “Ah, but the tone is different!” Really? Again – were you listening to Pope Benedict? Examples, please? Pope Francis has a more effusive personality, and if that floats your boat, great – but if it prompts you to weep in gratitude for a new tone and a New Church in the making, I hope your 15th birthday is nice.

Short version: let’s be concrete and specific and give examples. What’s is the “old” that the “newness” of Pope Francis is correcting?

I’m not saying that his words and tone are identical to Benedict’s or John Paul II’s. What I’m hearing is that people are excited that there is something fresh and new and super awesome here, and I just don’t understand what it is. Because it’s not what people say it is because Francis is not saying things that his predecessors were silent about.

I add, quickly: I appreciate what Pope Francis has to say, both when it affirms and when it challenges me. I’m glad that people are being moved and am sure it will bear fruit, just as Pope John Paul II’s papacy bore fruit and Pope Benedict XVI’s papacy bore fruit.

My armchair take on Francis is that when I hear him or read him , what I hear is a fellow who has been in the hierarchy for a long time. This hit me early on. His concerns are those of a bishop, and they seem to come out of a bishop’s experience of dealing with interest groups vying for his ear, careerist or pastorally indifferent clerics, and a structure, on the parish and diocesan level, which, despite the best of intentions, so often seems to lose focus and evolve into a self-perpetuating, self-serving club blind to the needy and broken souls right at the doorstep. It seems to me that much of what he says is an attempted and almost explosive corrective to all of that.

It’s also sort of like Pope Francis is having this continual discussion…even argument …but none of the rest of us can hear what the other party’s saying. So we’re confused and all looking at each other like

Which is all to the good, but is also, I think, just one aspect of Catholic life and even Catholic leadership. To be honest, what doesn’t thrill me about Pope Francis is that his context and reference seems rather…narrow. His words do not come across as thoughtfully, carefully and appreciatively situated in the experience – past and present – of the whole Church. Or even an awareness of all the different sorts of people who might be experiencing exclusion and alienation from Christ or his Church at any given time for a host of reasons, some of which might even surprise him. This puzzles me because, as the interview indicates, he is a deeply cultured person, but his homilies, speeches and exhortations reflect Jesus, Pope Francis and not a whole lot in between. One could ask, well, what more is there? Answer…a lot. That’s what “Catholic” is. A lot. That is a tall order, of course, to be able to do that, but that deep and broad vision is, I would think, part of what being Pope is all about. Unity.

The impact, then, is one of a very strong individual. In the modern world, we like this, but quite honestly, I wonder – is this ideal? Yes, all Popes are different, because they are human. They have various gifts and flaws, yes. But the ideal is that it shouldn’t really matter who the Pope is. The only thing that Garry Wills ever wrote that I agreed with was in one of his books in which he remembered growing up Catholic when no one really ever knew or cared what the Pope said or did. It just didn’t matter, because the experience of being Catholic was about more than the papacy. Now, Wills probably had another agenda here – he was reacting against John Paul’s popularity – but the point stands, I think. As interesting and inspiring as an individual Pope might be, the focus is supposed to be Christ. If the Pope’s words or actions bring people closer to Christ – fantastic. But if he starts functioning in too much of a 1 Corinthians 1:12 kind of way….we might need to refocus and get a grip.

There’s a lot of rather patronizing commentary out there. Is this patronizing? Hmmm…. By that I mean commentary that pats worried people on the head and accuses the concerned of not trusting the Holy Spirit or being fearful reactionaries or some such. Ascribing emotional motivations to those with theological, intellectual and spiritual questions, and therefore dismissing said concerns. Not very merciful or compassionate, if you ask me.

There’s also this rather frantic need to harmonize this papacy with Benedict’s, with JPII’s, with Pius X’s…with…everything. It’s a variation of the need to harmonize Catholic history into some sort of perfect consistency that just isn’t real. I am not sure where that comes from. It almost has that ahistorical Fundamentalist Protestant aura about it.

19 Responses

I will admit that I did not like Pope Benedict XVI because of things he had written before he became Pope and that was largely the lens with which I viewed him. He could have said the same words as Francis but I didn’t hear them because he just wasn’t someone I respected or would listen to because of that baggage.

Francis doesn’t have that baggage for me or for a lot of people. He seems, at least to those of us on the outside looking in, a completely different Pope and one whose manner and focus is a welcome change. He hasn’t preached on abortion because he hasn’t had to — instead, he called up a woman who got pregnant out of wedlock and offered to baptize her baby if she couldn’t find a priest to do so. That speaks volumes more than simply stating that abortion is wrong. It’s why I disagree with your claim in #4 that his words lack an awareness of people in the Church who are alienated at any given time.

I’m also not stupid enough to get my answers on Catholic theology from the mainstream media so I’m more than aware that the Pope didn’t say anything about changing Church teaching on abortion or homosexuality. I have yet to read the interview in America magazine but the soundbytes from Catholic sources seem to indicate that he’s saying that abortion shouldn’t be the only thing we hear about from Catholics. Instead, he’s calling for people to talk about Christ, to show Christ’s mercy, and to demonstrate Christ’s love because the Church’s teachings stem from that love. Once people can see Christ through us, we can start talking about how abortion is an act against that love.

What I’ve seen too much of is Catholics and bishops railing against abortion and last year, contraception, but I haven’t seen a lot of discussion on how they want to help the moms when that baby arrives. Are they going to help to feed the child? What about medical care for it? Abortion is evil and I’m not claiming it’s a good answer but a lot of women abort their children because they lack a way to take care of them. I’m hearing about caring for those kids from Pope Francis which is something I haven’t heard from the Church in the last 15 years; and yes, I’ve been paying attention.

I think the differences between the Pope and his two predecessors are matters of emphasis: JPII was essentially a moral theologian; BXVI was a systematic theology professor; Pope Francis is primarily concerned with pastoral practice. Theology schools have a tendency to treat pastoral practice as something less than rigorous. Pastoral practitioners have a tendency to see academics as rigid and often impractical. I see nothing in the Pope that makes me believe that what the Church needs is more Thomism. His homilies don’t sound like dissertations on quantum physics. He doesn’t scold the flock……because he loves the flock. It’s just a different approach….and I think the College of Cardinals decided consciously to give his approach a try.

“The only thing that Garry Wills ever wrote that I agreed with was in one of his books in which he remembered growing up Catholic when no one really ever knew or cared what the Pope said or did. It just didn’t matter, because the experience of being Catholic was about more than the papacy. Now, Wills probably had another agenda here – he was reacting against John Paul’s popularity – but the point stands, I think. As interesting and inspiring as an individual Pope might be, the focus is supposed to be Christ.”

I have to relate this story. My mom’s mother–a cradle Catholic–was an immigrant who had six children (one of whom became a nun). When my mother told her then 77 year-old-mother that Pope Pius XII had changed the Communion fast from the midnight before reception of Communion to only 3 hours before, my grandmother replied in somewhat broken English, “The Pope, what does HE know?”

She continued to retire at 9 AM on Saturday nights, went to the 6 AM Sunday Mass faithfully and would not take any nourishment (even water) until Communion. That had been her routine her entire life and she was not about to change it. She died at age 84. There was no 24×7 news cycle in those days, and Catholic life simply continued on a day-by-day basis as it had from her childhood with an unending Catholic liturgical cycle. I have no doubt that Christ was her focus as she demonstrated clearly and often during her life.

I appreciate your comments a great deal! They are carefully reasoned and provide much insight for reflection.

Jen, have you ever talked to any Catholics who volunteered at or supported crisis pregnancy help centers? I spent one day a week at one for 12 years, and I assure you their is lots being done by Catholics to help the mothers you speak about.

Jacqueline, I never said that there weren’t Catholics supporting their local crisis pregnancy centers — I have friends who volunteer with them as well as a friend who was employed by one for a year.

What I said was that what I see in the Catholic blogosphere and hear from bishops is lots of talk about how abortion is wrong but I very rarely hear people talking about going and volunteering. When I was talking about the Pope’s comments in a Catholic group that I’m part of online, there were a couple people who asked how they were supposed to tell people that abortion is wrong if the Pope is telling them to stop talking about it. That illustrated my point: people are stepping up to tell people that abortion is wrong but they aren’t addressing the root causes of it. I know what Catholic teaching is on the subject as well as the foundations of that teaching (I’m reading the Catechism with the rest of them so I have something to talk about) but the foundation of the Church’s teaching behind it is not being articulated well and even my friend the former CPC worker agrees with me on that.

Jim also hit the nail on the head of why I had a really hard time with the pope emeritus — he’s a systematic theologian and I don’t respond well to that, despite having done Master’s work in theology. Pope Francis is a pastor at heart and that’s what is appealing to so many people.

When two people say and do similar things, but one gets a greater response from certain people, that person has a gift of connecting with those people. Pope Francis has a special gift of connecting with the world. The New York Times did a quiz with a series of quotes by JP2, Benedict, and Francis. I started off pretty well, but then I got lost in trying to sort them out. JP2 drew in the young people of the Church; B16 spoke in a special way to Europe and built up the faithful; Francis has a gift for reaching those who would seem to be the furthest away from the Church and Christ.

Amy wrote: “Honestly, I do hear a lot of scolding in his words and tone.”

The only scolding I hear in his words is directed to the clergy and those who work for the church. I see a lot of what he says as trying to rally priests who are tired of bearing bad news instead of preaching the good news.

Yes. I felt a lot of sadness for those who have worked tirelessly in the pro-life trenches for decades. They constantly do battle against the accusation that “You don’t care about life after birth” (despite the fact that no one does more for the material well being of unwed mothers than the pro-life movement) or “Are you willing to adopt that baby?” (Yes). It is exhausting. And it felt like the Pope bought into the mindset of these accusers. As though he was confirming those incredibly shallow stereotypes of prolifers held by those who (disingenuously) advise, “You can’t just condemned. You have to offer alternatives.” Such an attitude wilfully ignores the tremendous emphasis the pro-life movement places on showing women compassion and offering them alternatives.

Where is this happening? What bad news? I belong to a parish with an orthodox/conservative pastoral staff. I’ve never heard a homily with bad news. Even the occasional sermon dealing with abortion or contraception are not presented as a finger wagging scolding. Those topics are always discussed in the context of, “Here is what true freedom is. This is the good news of the Gospel.”

I agree. Francis is scolding. But it is not the usual suspects he scolds. it is the conservative Culture Warrior.

He is not aligned with the Burke faction in the Vatican, for how can a Latin American Jesuit align with Burke? Additonally, he seems to be aware of folks like Tobin and Chaput, and I think he addresses them as well.

Benedict said much of the same: we must be for things and not against. He wrote the leftiest encyclicals (seriously, “God is Love”). But he was not forceful about the imposition of these thoughts on the mission of the pontificate.

Benedict chose not to offend the right. He wanted to bring the SSPX back home. And tried to build bridges to those he seemed to share some affinity with- the left.

We will use the sainthood of Romero as the test case. Benedict was pretty clear he perceived him as a martyr (also,Benedict missed his significance during his lifetime and immediately after his death) yet could not offend a certain sector of the Church by canonizing him. We await Francis’s movement on this.

Francis is not a pleaser of the right. So…claiming such things as being an orthodox Catholic as demonstrated by conservative pro-life principles while retaining libertarian standards (as Elizabeth Scalia does), one is going to find less comfort with this pope than with Benedict (who roundly rejected libertarianism in his third encyclical) because Benedict’s most serious teachings could be more easily ignored by focusing on his pious pronouncements (“listen to his wonderful exposition on the Father of the Church at this Wednesday’s audience…”).

I have noticed a group of apologists who have been trying to assure conservatives what the pope did not say on this and other matters. I have to say they are as misleading with regards to the pope’s message as the headline writers. They too are ignoring vast chunks of Benedict’s writings on the same subjects, quite clearly to make sure that the audience isn’t offended too much by Francis.

I am surprised by the surprise. This is a Latin American Jesuit. He will be somewhat unmoved when Wuerl speaks of future successors who will die martyrs or imprisoned. He had brother Jesuits who already had done so, in not small numbers. He rescued his brother priests from torture and imprisonment when Provincial, dealing with the US-backed leader of his country. This, perhaps, shapes a view that prevents him from associating too closely with the Right. And the representative of the American Right in the Vatican, Burke, is not particularly sympathetic to the history of Latin America experienced by that Jesuit.

JP2 had a close association with George Weigel, who wanted a Culture Warrior as per his WSJ essay. My claim is that the Culture War has been an instrument of the Enemy who has used it to drive a wedge in the Faith. I think our current pope, a man who knows deep ghettoes in Latin America, is disinterested in that war.

I am attracted to intellectuals. Benedict was fantastic and said all the same, even clearer like “yes, non-believers are saved.” (Despite Jimmy Akin’s wordy attempt to assure his audience that isn’t realy said.) Francis, teaching and writing less deeply, is not going to be ignored.

Pope Francis is a wonderful priest, with extraordinary pastoral gifts and a deeply spiritual heart. But I do think that there is some risk in the way he is “appearing” to distance himself from his predecessors, when in reality he could be emphasizing the continuity of their words and gestures. Since he has charmed the media and he has the attention of the whole world due to his beautiful pastoral gestures it would be a wonderful opportunity to show how the perception that people have about the Church and the papacy is so very distorted. It would be a win/win.

I must admit that the “scolding” is problematic for me too. “These are today’s hypocrites” “Stop doing this!” “Don’t drive a new car”, “Don’t be spinsters!”, “Don’t gossip” etc. Pope Francis is saying very important things that need to be said, but every Mom knows that her words will have a much greater effect if she uses positive reinforcement.

The other great risk in “appearing” to deemphasize continuity in papacies is the exacerbation of the polarization that is crushing the Church and preventing her from evangelizing effectively.
It painful to see that it looks to be getting even worse…doesn’t it?

ps. I say “appearing” to deemphasize continuity, because I doubt that that is what the Holy Father intends to do…but to the casual observer, that is how it appears.

Amy I always appreciate your posts. But I do not at all see or hear – in fact I would offer what the outside world is clearly not hearing or seeing – is someone who has been in the hierarchy too long. Unless by that you mean someone who has suffered in the hinterlands from a ‘pontifical curia’ that too often acted like vice-popes with the regional bishops and even cardinals subservient to them and they in turn report and controlled the information to the pope. Or perhaps you mean as a bishop who avoided going to Rome as much as possible who watched too many appointments of careerist ” airport bishops” and too few shepherds who ‘smell like the sheep’.

Jim rightfully described both JPII and BXIV as theologians. The current Pope is not a simpleton, but he is trained in the classical jesuit style of presenting his
message in three points, always brief but focused homilies ( since most people can only absorb 5 to 7 minutes) and repeating over and over his major themes. The brief daily mass homilies allow him to reinforce these messages multiple times a week.The themes are to be more merciful and go out to the edges of our world to find those who are abandoned and are struggling in life to bring them the good news of Christ. No one can say that JII or BXiV did not say these things- but Pope Frances says them over and over.

In pushing his focus, the Pope is disappointing some who wish he would retain a more inward focus as was seen in the past – for example on the language of liturgy or clerical vestments or even appointments of bishops based on theological purity vs pastoral experience. No one can deny these were given a higher priority in the past two pontificates. In some respects those who already are in the church may feel a bit put off or abandoned like the 99 sheep or the good son who did not squander his father’s estate.

I for one find the new pontiff inspiring and challenging. I find his talks and homilies accessible and use the pope app to catch up on what i may have missed. I pray for his continued health and for the Holy Spirit to continue to inspire him and us our faith journey. ( ps – I love Fr Pacwa’s description of Frances ‘ bringing the hay down where the goats can access it’)

Very well said, Ann. I’ve noticed that certain commentators online, and a letter writer published in today’s Sunday LA Times, are misreading Pope Francis’ remarks as “Hah-ha! The culture war is over, and we won!”

I didn’t say “too long.” Those are your words. Just as B16’s perspective comes out of being an academic and curia official, PF’s experience is of a religious superior and bishop. Again – “too long” – are your words.

I’m reading this 2 days later, but in fact yesterday at Mass, the priest mentioned in his homily that he felt (after reading the whole America interview and good for him) that Pope Francis is at least at this stage speaking primarily to “his priests” more than to the laity. So, much like item 3.
I also agree this one time with Garry Wills–I was not specifically aware of who the pope was as a child, I was much more aware of the local bishop (Cardinal Cushing) than the pope. That did change with the election of John Paul II–but really, because he was Polish, my family is Polish, and so we took it very personally (he even looked like my dad). But as the first non-Italian in 450+ years, his election was a big deal and it may take even a few more years for that non-Italian novelty to wear off–even if Francis is perceived as almost/mostly/sort-of Italian.